Ok, since you didn't get my point about post scarcity and communism not being mutually exclusive, I will make it more clear. If there are infinite resources, there is no reason for a select few to horde and distribute resources unfairly, like in capitalism, because everyone has access directly to said infinite resources. Therefore, in post scarcity communism, everyone gets what they want and need without worrying about someone else in society having to go without. Fair distribution is a nonexistent issue. Energy is free for all and the entirety of society owns it. There is absolutely no need for private property; not to be confused with personal property which is completely separate.

When you learn exactly what propaganda is, how to critically think about a concept and its application, you can easily navigate around BOTH or all sides propaganda advocates for or against. It isn't rocket science to learn all viewpoints and come to a logical conclusion based on facts about something.

So you're worried about how equality and fairness would be "enforced", but you totally ignore that fact that private property and inequality are violently enforced by the state and capitalists? What do you think keeps you away from certain swaths of land? You think the police don't exist to protect the status quo of the elite class and their "peacefully owned" property and interests? Hah. Which dynamic seems more natural and logical to you for a social species like humans who have historically lived in communal tribes and societies in the past before violence and greed took hold? Sharing the resources equally within the same species, naturally keeping the population stable through equal distribution and lack of labor demand based on generating wealth-- or, having a select few hoard a majority of the resources to sell to others who aren't members of this elite class, in turn having them work for you to generate more wealth upwards, renting them land to use, creating and perpetuating a poor class of individuals, who are kept just content enough to slowly grow the population of people and future workers for the elite to build more of a wealth stash for their own narcissistic benefits. Which system do you think requires more threat of violence on more people? The society in which there are no economically/socially oppressed groups or classes, or the society with a small minority of wealth accumulators who do not want their vast amounts of resources going to the large majority who are going without? That small minority has to have a large amount of power and threat of violence to keep an entire population from revolting and seizing private property.

Labor has been becoming useless in the US because the labor can be bought for cheaper in "developing" countries, and automation doesn't help either. I wonder what's going to happen when labor is actually fully automated and there is 75%+ unemployment rates globally. Not everyone is going to have a purpose in an automated society, so how the fuck are these people going to eat if all the resources and property ownership are limited to the top 8%? Communist revolution and/or total economic collapse are inevitable at this point. The top 1% aren't going to do shit for a commoner population if they can just leave or isolate themselves if they do manage to escape the revolt. Capitalists aren't known for skills in long term future planning and putting off short term profit. Mass unemployment will come much faster and won't be remedied by all of a sudden "caring" about the lower classes and providing a basic income for most of the population. They'd much rather they all starve to death. If this happens post scarcity, then their wealth becomes meaningless anyway because everyone has access to absolutely every living necessity and even commodities at this point.

For the last time, communism is precisely NOT about creating wealth because wealth creation is fundamentally created by stealing labor value. You are as dense as a fucking black hole. Parts of the world can still trade their resources with eachother without the capitalistic trait of exploiting other people for the gain of a few. And this only applies to pre-scarcity earth. Post scarcity, like in ST, with replicators and antimatter energy, there is no need for global trade. And even for off planet trade, there doesn't need to be wealth generation involved whatsoever. What the fuck? Capitalism functions on voluntary agreements for mutual benefit aye? That's why the wealth gap is so huge right? That's why capitalists are able to literally steal value from workers in order to make that profit, right? That's why there are 0% unemployment rates and workers totally get a say in what they are paid yeah? They're paid so well that some even starve to death or are forced to get state subsidized food supplementation? Not to mention the people who can't find labor demand anywhere whatsoever. Here's some news for you, you naïve soul, the state does not work for commoners or the planet, the state works for whoever has the most money. The state works for the bourgeoisie, and only supplements the poor enough to keep them distracted and not completely destitute. They don't do this to protect the poor, they do it to protect the interests of the elite and themselves. The state is the puppet of the rich, used to enforce the status quo, protect profit and private property. That's it.

Infinite growth is what you get in capitalism. Accumulation of wealth/profit for capitalists is growth. If capitalists aren't making money from their labor force by paying them less than the value of the finished product in consumer demand, that is considered failure and failure is avoided or limited as much as humanly possible.

Social justice means societal equality and fairness, and gender roles are counteractive to this goal. The purpose of gender roles are to divide and oppress based on genitals. The idea of masculinity and femininity are not based in equality or even reality. Women are not inherently feminine just like men aren't inherently masculine. Hormones do create some physical and emotional differences but not to the extent where each sex is assigned to black and white gender association. Gender role enforcement and encouragement is social injustice. I don't know where you got the idea that femininity is superior to masculinity. They are both human created concepts of how each sex is to behave and both can have negative effects on individuals and society if one is favored over the other. Gender roles were shaped in order to benefit the physically "dominant" sex in society especially in the past, and since it wasn't women I doubt they really had a say in what was considered "girly" or "manly" behavior unless they wanted the power over them physically demonstrated. Women are "protected" and "coddled" in society because it directly benefits the men in power. Femininity was designed to keep women meek, submissive and mentally "weak" for a reason and it does tie in to reproduction, childrearing and resource accumulation as well. Femininity is not a good thing to enforce just like masculinity.